Workforce planning required a more structured WFM environment, and the existing setup had to evolve without disrupting live operations:

• Scheduling
• Workforce capacity
• Skills management
• Routing
• Opening and office hours
• Workforce allocation
• Planning
• Reporting
• Operational management

• Verint consultants
• Operations
• Team leaders
• Regional management
• HR
• Finance
• IT
• Reporting
• Training

Mentored 10+ colleagues on WFM processes, tools and data practices. Introduced QA and reporting standards that improved reporting accuracy from 82% to 96%.

Improved workforce allocation, scheduling structure and operational visibility across Europe and Africa teams.

Enterprise-scale intraday workforce optimisation across more than 1,500 employees and 150+ teams. The objective was to make better use of existing workforce capacity by identifying temporary opportunities to support teams experiencing staffing shortages. Rather than looking at each team independently, the process considered the wider workforce and evaluated where available capacity could be reassigned based on operational requirements. Constraints considered simultaneously:

• Current headcount
• Staffing requirements
• Employee availability
• Current team assignment
• Language capability
• Training status
• Subject-matter knowledge
• Team requirements
• Operational demand
• Existing workload
• Coverage requirements
• Potential downstream impact of moving resources

The scale of the operation meant that workforce allocation decisions could not be made effectively through isolated manual checks. Each allocation decision could influence other teams, creating a need to continuously evaluate the wider workforce position.

I was responsible for analysing the workforce position, identifying coverage gaps and evaluating opportunities to reallocate available capacity across teams. The work required understanding both the numerical workforce position and the operational characteristics of the people being considered for allocation.

• Intraday workforce management
• Capacity analysis
• Resource allocation
• Skills-based planning
• Workforce optimisation
• Data analysis
• Scenario evaluation
• Operational risk assessment
• Cross-team planning
• Decision-making under changing conditions

The first stage was establishing the current operational workforce position — an accurate baseline before any allocation. This is not simply moving employees between teams; it is temporary cross-team resource allocation within approved operational constraints.

• Who was available
• Who was absent
• Who was already allocated
• Current team headcount
• Expected staffing requirements
• Existing capacity
• Current operational demand
• Potential coverage risks

Team A

A coverage gap does not automatically mean additional staffing is required. The next step was to determine whether existing workforce capacity elsewhere could be used to address the gap.

Availability alone was not sufficient to determine whether an employee could support another team. The workforce had to be evaluated against operational capability: language, training, skills, availability, current assignment and operational eligibility.

1. Employee→
2. Language→
3. Training→
4. Subject→
5. Availability→
6. Current team→
7. Eligible destination teams

Team P

The three available employees were only considered if their skills, language, training and availability aligned with the requirements of the receiving team. This prevented resource allocation from becoming a simple headcount transfer.

Moving one employee can solve one problem while creating another. Moving one suitable employee from Team P to Team A may reduce Team A’s gap from -3 to -2, while Team P moves from +3 to +2. The same logic could be repeated across multiple teams and resources — continuous evaluation of the wider workforce rather than isolated decisions.

Not every staffing gap represented the same level of operational risk. Allocation prioritised the areas where additional capacity would have the greatest operational value — maximising the value of available capacity rather than simply eliminating the largest numerical gap.

• Size of coverage gap
• Operational demand
• Required skills
• Language requirements
• Workforce availability
• Existing team capacity
• Potential impact of the proposed movement
• Priority of the affected operation

After evaluating available resources and operational constraints, the final allocation plan was produced. It represented the best available solution based on the information and constraints present at the time.

• Resource
• Origin team
• Destination team
• Relevant skill or language requirement
• Availability period
• Operational purpose
• Expected coverage impact

Before allocation decisions were implemented, the proposed workforce position was reviewed so changes did not introduce larger operational risks elsewhere. A theoretically optimal allocation could still create operational problems if the wider workforce position changed.

• Rechecking source-team coverage
• Rechecking destination-team requirements
• Confirming resource availability
• Confirming relevant capability
• Reviewing the resulting workforce position
• Checking for unintended coverage gaps

The optimisation process could take approximately three hours each day to compile, calculate, evaluate and validate. The analysis was not simply a headcount calculation.

• Collecting workforce information
• Establishing team-level capacity
• Identifying gaps
• Mapping skills and languages
• Checking training requirements
• Evaluating available resources
• Testing potential allocations
• Recalculating downstream effects
• Prioritising operational risk
• Validating the final workforce position

The workforce optimisation process helped maximise existing workforce capacity and reduce the need for additional staffing to address temporary coverage requirements. The estimated financial impact exceeded €100k per week based on the internal workforce-cost calculation used to evaluate the operational effect of resource allocation. Financial impact is presented at a high level. Underlying workforce-cost data and calculation methodology are confidential.

• Workforce planning
• Intraday management
• Capacity planning
• Resource allocation
• Workforce optimisation
• Skills-based planning
• Scenario analysis
• Operational risk management
• Data analysis
• Cross-team planning
• Language-based workforce allocation
• Training-based resource matching
• Decision making
• Cost optimisation
• Operational intelligence

Methods used on this project — no additional software claimed beyond the planning and analysis practice itself.

• Workforce management
• Intraday workforce planning
• Capacity planning
• Resource allocation
• Workforce analysis
• Headcount analysis
• Coverage analysis
• Scenario modelling
• Data validation
• Data reconciliation
• Workforce data analysis

Rather than continuing to optimise the spreadsheet process, I independently investigated the internal data environment and identified Meta internal database sources that could provide more direct workforce data. This was a self-directed data discovery and analytics initiative, not a pre-defined migration task.

• Investigated available internal datasets
• Identified relevant data sources and fields
• Determined how the data could support workforce reporting
• Developed SQL queries to extract required information
• Validated the extracted data against existing reporting
• Investigated discrepancies between old and new outputs

The organisation transitioned its BI environment from Power BI to Tableau. This required more than moving visualisations. Analytical migration: DAX / Power BI logic → SQL + Tableau calculations → Tableau dashboards.

• Rebuilt reporting processes
• Recreated analytical calculations
• Translated existing business logic
• Adapted DAX-based logic into Tableau calculations and SQL where appropriate
• Built Tableau dashboards
• Validated new outputs against existing reports
• Supported users through the transition

Workforce information was distributed across multiple systems and files. Sources feeding query, audit, reconciliation and data-model stages included:

• WFM
• TMS / HRCN
• SCUBA
• ClockCard
• FWPOP
• AbsenceLine
• IPTEL
• Operational files
• Team-lead files
• Master connection files

Created a more consistent and auditable workforce intelligence process.

Workforce reporting required information from multiple systems and files with different structures, refresh cycles and data formats. Manual preparation created:

• Repetitive work
• Data-quality risks
• Long report preparation times
• Dependency on individual processes
• Difficulties validating changes across sources

Approximately 60% reduction in manual effort.

Workforce requirements changed across teams and operating conditions. Planning needed to answer:

• How much workforce is required?
• How much capacity is available?
• Where are the gaps?
• What happens if demand changes?
• What happens if workforce availability changes?

Improved visibility of workforce requirements, capacity constraints and potential operational risks across 30+ Europe and Africa teams.